Martin - you might get some nearly right - the real problem is that you have called for MANY quakes already in california only to have nothing happen. I think it goes back to the story about boy that cried wolf.

You saw some 4 something magnitude quakes along the alaskan penninsula and said 'Quake coming in Adak', then added somewhere in Alaskan Penninsula... That kind of a prediction is useless in real life - what should have been done? Maybe the 6.6 is a foreshock to an 8.5? Who Knows? (we will soon I'm sure) - The point is that it would not have saved any lives - coming back and saying "Yep, I PREDICTED IT" still doesn't do anyone any good. You want to evacuate the Aleutian Islands and Alaska coastline every time there's a 4 something magnitude quake? Heck - just have everyone move somewhere else!

I'm still waiting on those results of how many you have 'predicted' versus actual hits - I've seen about 10-20 predictions a week. How many total predictions, how many actual hits (within location stated and magnitude and time), how many actually get a 'near hit' and how many absolutely nothing ? Unfortunately, as Roger and Alan know, we'll never know what the 'chance' percentage of those numbers would be.

In post 4433 you are predicting a quake, 3.4 for North of Hollister in the next 8 days... you have about an 85% chance of that happening - but a little note about San Juan Bautista - its always moving, that probably is not a foreshock to anything.

Before you can start tooting your horn you need to be able to have some sort of measurement to point to - then we can all agree - numbers don't lie. We have all just been trying to help you to do that.

Canie